Antonio Fernandez v. Victor Hugo Torres Palencia, 2:22-cv-02327

Plaintiff Antonio Fernandez sued defendants Victor Hugo Torres Palencia, Noemi Fuentefria, and Miriam Hernandez asserting (1) an ADA claim and (2) a California Unruh Act claim arising from alleged construction-access barriers.
Federal jurisdiction was invoked for the ADA claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343; the Unruh Act claim was asserted under supplemental jurisdiction.
California law imposes heightened pleading requirements for certain Unruh construction-access suits (verified complaint with specific dates and barrier details) and a “high-frequency litigant” fee for repeat claimants.
The federal supplemental-jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, requires district courts to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to retain state-law claims.
Citing those principles, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Fernandez to justify why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.
The Court directed Plaintiff to state the amount of statutory damages sought and to file declarations under penalty of perjury showing whether Plaintiff or counsel qualify as a “high-frequency litigant”; failure to comply by May 6, 2022 could result in declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim	Fernandez asserted the Unruh claim in the same action and invoked supplemental jurisdiction (no further record argument provided)	No argument on record challenging retention of supplemental jurisdiction	Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why it should retain supplemental jurisdiction and to provide specified information; warned it may decline jurisdiction under § 1367(c) if response is inadequate
Whether Plaintiff must disclose statutory damages amount and high-frequency-litigant facts	Plaintiff must identify damages and provide sworn facts to allow Court to determine high-frequency-litigant status	Defendants did not assert a contrary position on the record	Court required disclosure of the amount of statutory damages sought and sworn declarations under penalty of perjury about high-frequency-litigant status by the specified deadline

City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (federal courts should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in exercising supplemental jurisdiction)
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (same; courts must consider those values at every stage when deciding to retain pendent claims)